Section 9 (c) Defines the arrest and evidence of intoxicating drugs. The complainant, the police officer, who confessed to the arrest of the accused on the occasion, was put under investigation for a long time, but nothing was found in favor of the defense which gave his statement in its entirety. Based on the facts and contents of the FIR and recovery memo, the trial was set up on the occasion of the accused's arrest and did not refuse the recovery of the narcotics from the suspect's car-driven vehicle. Except for the slightest contradiction about the number of packets that can be recovered, nothing conducive to the accused can be put on record, based on the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, saying that the contradiction was not serious, and so on. Cannot be considered. It is enough to thwart the life and recovery process, or to make the recovery suspect, the prosecution's witness stated that the recovery in their presence was influenced by the cave's secret cavities, with the remaining witnesses in their respective roles. As they were assigned by the prosecution report. The report by the Franz Science Laboratory confirmed that the prohibited substance was actually delayed in sending the laboratory samples completely clear that there was no material contradiction or contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Recovering large quantities of marijuana from confiscated vehicle cows proved beyond any shadow of suspicion, even at the time of arrest, the suspect was driving and the co-accused was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle, the laboratory positive. The report said
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
